i fink dere4 i iz

"I think, therefore I am"

Bunargóint a bhí ag Descartes. D'aontódh an tIarthar leis den chuid is mó, is dóigh liom (de réir le cúrsaí creidimh agus le cultúir an Iarthair de gnáth... ach is dócha go raibh tionchar láidire ag cúrsaí creidimh ar an gcultúr ag baint leis ar aon nós i rith na staire)

Ag smaoineamh fé mo chuid beageolais maidir le cursaí creidimh is cultúr sa tOirthear, measaim go ndéanfaí plé tréan air, ar a laghadh! (mar dá gcreidfadh té an ráiteas thuas, ní bheadh sé in ann an difríocht idir an mheabhair agus an fíordhuine féin... agus ceapaim gur barúil idé mhór é sin ann!)

Ní maith liom a bheith gan an t-eolas anois, mar sin - an bhfuil an ceart, mícheart, nó rud ina lár ag an ráiteas thuas?


A fundamental argument of Descartes. Most western culture, I would say (including religion and just general outlook on things.... though I suppose the former had a strong influence on the latter historically at least), would agree.

From my vastly limited knowledge of Eastern philosophy and beliefs, I'd imagine it'd be a challenged viewpoint, to say the least (the mind being separated from the self being in dispute should someone hold the above statement to be true)

I don't like not knowing for sure anyway, so right, wrong or somewhere in between?

A great question indeed and I think the last question you posed was "Why are we here?" which I believe has no meaning. This however I believe is one of the meaningful questions of philosophy today because dialogue around it can involve metaphysics, computer science, theology, psychology, language, brain science, anthropology etc. - it's very wide ranging and deeply personal simultaneously.

As you say rightly it's associated with Western thinking and possibly gave rise to our quite Newtonian world today, however good or bad that is. In Taoism their concept of the mind is much more married to the interaction with the world than being isolated from it as in the Cartesian worldview ... a notion used casually and commonly in quantum physics.

Oh! ghabh mo leithscéil ach niílim in ann an fealsúnacht a ____________ as gaeilge.

I think - agus tá m'eolas féin chomh beag le d'eolas féin! - that the central tenet of most Eastern religions is to foster awareness and that can't be done when the body and the mind and spirit are not at least aiming to be in the one place.

'I be, therefore I am' might be an equivalent for the East, because the focus is on being - awareness and consciousness.

I'm always, well not always, trying to figure out if Descartes was trying to say the same thing as the Roman who said Post hoc ergo procter hoc.

I know one has to do with consciousness, the other with causality, but I have this mad notion about them that won't go away.

I'm mad aren't I.

BuachaillBeo wrote:

"I think, therefore I am"

A fundamental argument of Descartes. Most western culture, I would say (including religion and just general outlook on things.... though I suppose the former had a strong influence on the latter historically at least), would agree.

I don't like not knowing for sure anyway, so right, wrong or somewhere in between?

This was the sexy bit of philosophy which got me hooked in the first place (epistemology) so why don't you expand on how Descartes came to his famous conclusion at all ? Some readers may not be aware of the lead up to his famous declaration and may find it springs from emotions in him at that time.

I'll bump it tomorrow when you're back in uni

Fraid I wouldn't be considered a fan of Descartes.

I think ( ), that Descartes' proof of existence comes with a major flaw. The "I think," bit presupposes that the "I," exists to do the thinking in the first place. Other than that, I like the sound of it - rolls of the tongue easilly. Much better than what it translates into: "I exist, therefore I exist."

"I am, therefore I think", Putting Descartes before the horse.

OK, so its an old one.

Auditor #9 wrote:

why don't you expand on how Descartes came to his famous conclusion at all ? Some readers may not be aware of the lead up to his famous declaration and may find it springs from emotions in him at that time.

I'll bump it tomorrow when you're back in uni

Well... the best way I can explain it is thusly:

You've two options, of which one must be choosen to solve the following:
How did Descartes came to his famous conclusion at all?

Rogha uimhir a haon:
Ask the fella with the Philosophy degree

Rogha uimhir a dó:
Ask the fella who doesn't know, is trying to find a way out now....ah!... and who started a thread with the word 'fink' in the title.

In the spirit of philosophy I've answered your question with meaningless babble which only causes the necessity for more questions to be asked (though saying that I'd have liked to get at least a year's study of it under my belt... but alas no )

How did he, actually?

I think I think therefore I think I am.

BuachaillBeo wrote:

How did he, actually?

I found a nice little answer here which reflects what Hermes was saying about Descartes presuming the "I" to exist in the first place. This next one here is a bit longer and reflects the "Matrix" element in Descartes conclusion. Yes, the one with Keanu Reeves and more importantly, Carrie-Ann Moss in shiny pvc + guns.

Descartes was a doubter, like Neo. He doubted everything. He possibly went around in his adult life asking questions of people selling him apples in an apple stall "What's this?" "It's an apple - don't tell me you're going to start going on about the apples now .." "How do you know it's an apple?" "Because I can see it you tool" "Ah, but you see apples all the time in your dreams I'd say and I'd say they all look as real as this one - how do you know you're not dreaming right now?" "I wish I was, you bore".
http://www.scienceandyou.org/articles/ess_12.shtml ('Cogito ergo sum')

Locke is interesting too but in a different way. His ideas are much more grounded in physics and are related to Descartes'. Possibly two schools of modern philosophy started to take root around this time and centered around these men.

Anyway, Descartes doubted everything. He wasn't sure if he was dreaming or awake or anything because for all he knew he could be inside a giant computer with wires controlling his brain. Seriously, the man thought up shit like this - he was way ahead of his time. One night sitting by his fire with the tv switched off he started to doubt everything around him. He 'reasoned' that there may not be a fire, a sitting room and rocking chair, a bathrobe - he had no real reason to believe any of it was real ... maybe it was all in his head, put there by a demon or a robot. Maybe he wasn't even a human dreaming about his sitting room and fire, maybe he was being persecuted by a demon and only made to think that this was his reality when maybe it wasn't his reality at all. Was any of it true he wondered. Then it came to him: as long as I can think then at least I have that - as long as I can exercise my volition in mental things then I know I exist and that will be the cornerstone of my philosophy - Cogito ergo sum. And then he switched on CNN.

I don't know latin but I'd say the word 'cogito' has the inherent meaning of 'making an effort' in it like 'agitate'. I could be wrong though. Nor do I know if it's a valid argument but couldn't that monster, evil demon or ghost not have been putting the cogito ergo sum thoughts in his mind in the first place?

(on googling 'cogito' just found nice forum website here - young scientists http://www.cogito.org/ )

Logical look at Descartes
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil100/AgainstMM.html

Name-dropping blogger on Quine Russell and Descartes
http://dinnertabledonts.blogspot.com/2005/01/descartes-russell-quine-and.html

Auditor #9 wrote:

....He wasn't sure if he was dreaming or awake or anything because for all he knew he could be inside a giant computer with wires controlling his brain. Seriously, the man thought up shit like this - he was way ahead of his time. One night sitting by his fire with the tv switched off he started to doubt everything around him. He 'reasoned' that there may not be a fire, a sitting room and rocking chair, a bathrobe - he had no real reason to believe any of it was real ... maybe it was all in his head, put there by a demon or a robot. Maybe he wasn't even a human dreaming about his sitting room and fire, maybe he was being persecuted by a demon and only made to think that this was his reality when maybe it wasn't his reality at all. ....

In fairness Audi, that could be Descartes or Jim Morrison .

When the doors of perception are cleansed, man will see things as they truly are, infinite.

I think Berkeley came out with one of the better tie-ups to a chain of reasoning that went awry somewhere between Locke and Descartes..
esse est percipi - to be is to be perceived

This is The End

Mairtín Ó Díreáin wrote a poem once about berkeley's philosophy. I'll try to root it out.